The London Communiqu May be the Answer but What was the Question.

код для вставки на сайт или в блог

ссылки на документ

Dev. Chem. Eng. Mineral Process., 11(3/4),pp. 247-265, 2003.
The London CommuniquC May be the
Answer, but What was the Question?
J. Peet
Dept. of Chemical & Process Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
How to achieve Sustainable Development (SO) is probably the most important policy
question facing us. Most conventional approaches, however, fail to get to grips with
the totality of the issue. In this paper I propose that SD be addressedfrom a wider
perspective that acknowledges systemic complexity as the central issue. To address
complexity properly requires that policymakers acknowledge that no single tool can
answer the question - and also that the question should never be simplified in order to
fit with the tools on ofer. In order to integrate approaches @om a number of
disciplines, it is critically important to enunciate an ethic that will guide the process.
Such an ethic should come out of a process involving stakeholdersfrom all sectors of
the community.
Introduction
On the 75" anniversary of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, lO* April 1997, the
representatives of 18 societies representing chemical engineers worldwide and acting
in their personal capacities, subscribed to the statement [l]:
The key challengefor our profession in the twenty-first century is: to use our skills
to improve the quality of life: foster employment, advance economic and social
development, and protect the environment.
This challenge encompasses the essence of sustainable development. We will work
to make the world a better placefor future generations.
247
J.Peet
This admirable challenge may be contrasted with another, coming fiom the journal
Atlantic Monthly, in 1998:
In the spring of 1912 one of the largest moving objects ever created by human
beings left Southampton and began gliding toward New York. It was the epitome
of its industrial age
- a potent representation of technology, prosperity, luxury,
andprogress. It weighed 66,000 tons. Its steel hull stretched the length offour c i y
blocks. Each of its steam engines was the size of a townhouse. And it was headed
for a disastrous encounter with the natural world.
This vessel, of course, was the Titanic - a brute of a ship, seemingly impervious to
the details of nature. In the minds of the captain, the crew, and many of the
passengers, nothing could sink it.
One might say that the infastructure created by the Industrial Revolution of the
nineteenth century resembles such a steamship. It is powered by fossil fuels,
nuclear reactors, and chemicals. It is pouring waste into the water and smoke into
the sky. It is attempting to work by its own rules, contrary to those of the natural
world. And although it may seem invincible, itsfundamental designflaws presage
disaster. Yet many people still believe that with a few minor alterations, this
infastructure can take us safely andprosperously into thefuture [2].
Most countries in the world are run according to a worldview that implicitly
assumes that there are no problems Man cannot overcome. The only requirement is
that The Market is left as free as possible to respond to His needs (gender-specific
language deliberate!). Parallel to this is another worldview, which asserts that most
economies are currently on a collision course with the natural systems of the world. In
this view, application of common sense and good science, guided by a clearly
enunciated ethic, are needed to change direction before collision occurs.
In this context, I make the assertion that Science - and Economics - can describe,
up to a point, what is. To a lesser extent, they can also help us assess what could be.
But neither Science nor Economics can tell us what should be. That is the key issue
of sustainability. It is an issue of Values, not of kilowatts or dollars. Sustainability, in
practice, is a moral and ethical issue. Technology and economics can and must
contribute to its resolution, but are unlikely to assist in its identification.
248
The London Communique‘m q be the answer, but what was the question?
Collision Avoidance
Brown et al. [3] in the 1999 “State of the World” put it thus:
The trends of recent years suggest that we need a new moral compass to guide us
into the twenty-first century - a compass that is grounded in the principles of
meeting human nee& sustainabh. Such an ethic of sustainability would be based
on a concept of respect for future generations.
A more specific ethic (which may undergo further evolution) [4] is that:
All people have their basic needs satisfied, so they can live in dignity, in healthy
communities, while ensuring the minimum aherse impact on the natural system,
now and in the future.
This statement is more helpful, I believe, than the overworked and often misleading
term “sustainable development”. Inter-generational justice is an explicit part of the
statement; continuing pursuit of “affluence” is not. (While I personally believe “all
living things” should also be included in the Goal, I suspect this is more than most
people are currently ready to acknowledge. Thus, the last part of the Goal statement
falls short of explicitly calling for interspecies justice.) The ethic helps open up a
picture of People, Society, Economy and Environment all inextricably linked
together, with all parts of this complex system engaged in dynamic, evolutionary
interaction.
Means of answering questions implicit in the ethic
- particularly the meaning of
“basic needs” of people and of living systems - are becoming available, not least via
developments in Systems Thinking.
The contributions of Bossel [5] on basic
orientors of viability of general systems, and of Max-Neef [6] on fundamental human
needs are now being brought together into a synthesis [7] which also incorporates
understandings of emergent Complexity.
The term Ecological Economics [ S ] describes an ideal for the future, where
ecologists and economists have joined with engineers, physical and social scientists
and others in developing better tools and methods. For example, at the 1998
Conference on Ecological Economics in Santiago, Chile, the following statement was
included in the Programme:
The debates that will take place during the Conference are aimed at exploring the
249
J. Peet
contributions that are being made by the emerging discipline of Ecological
Economics in the search for a style of economic growth that allows for the
sustainability of natural resources and the environment, the achievement of a
better quality of lfe, the elimination of poverty and the alleviation of social
injustice at national and international level. This requires the articulation of
diferent scientific perspectives, not only for a better understanding of
environmental, social, cultural and economic problems, but also to identifL and
propose solutions aimed at designing efective policies and institutions.
The economist Common [9]has pointed out that the interdependency of economic
and ecological systems makes it unavoidable that production and consumption
involve extractions fiom, and insertions into, the natural environment. Since the latter
is a thermo-physically closed system with a fixed energy input, one cannot avoid the
sustainability problem. To develop this point, we need to look at what sustainability
means in some current paradigms.
Some Conventional Paradigms of Sustainability
The circular flow diagram in Figure 1 characterises the mainstream model of the
economic process [lo]. Here goods and services made by Employers/Firms
("producers") are sold to Households (konsumers"), who in turn obtain money by
selling their labour or capital. Exchange relationships between Capital and Labour
(the Factors of Production) are primary; underlying physical production relations are
largely ignored.
Within this paradigm, according to Common [ 111:
Economics conceptualises the sustainability problem as that of maintaining a
constant level of per capita aggregate consumptionforever.
This model, where production and consumption are linked by circular flows of
exchange value, can be modified by acknowledging the essential part played by the
linear flows of material and energy resources ftom the environment, through the
economy, and out to "pollution" [12], as shown in Figure 2. This can be seen as a
thermo-physical (or engineer's) model of economic activity.
250
The London Communique'may be the answer, but what was the question?
Investment
lending
Institution
Savin
Consumption
Households
Income
GDP
Figure 1. Circularjlow model of macroeconomics.
POLLUTION
Figure 2. Thermophysicalmacroeconomic model.
25I
J. Peet
This perspective makes it easy to understand why, as NsrgArd [I31 puts it:
The various environmental problems we are experiencing at a still faster rate are
not just accidental, unique problems which can all be removed by some
technological fues. Rather they are symptoms of a too high throughput of
materials and energy, caused by a growing number of people, increasing their
material consumption and activities, using environmentally inappropriate and
clumsy technologies, all in a limited world
The model of Figure 2 has limitations. For example, as M’Gonigle [ 141 points out:
Because markets separate production and consumption, they tend to create a
-
linearflow of resources. Resourcesflow to where the money is to the North, to
the cities, to the wealthy
-
that is, to and up the social
hierarch. ...... Thus
although the monetaty exchange system may be circular on one level (money
being exchanged f i r good) the physical products themselves start at one place
and end up somewhere else. In the process, a lot of energy is consumed, and huge
disposal problems are generated.
A fiuther problem is that incorporation of the extra information gained from a
material or energy analysis inevitably raises problems of commensurability of units,
in that activities within the economy are conventionally represented in monetary
units, whereas those in ecological and industrial systems are often better represented
by material and energy or entropy flows [ 151.
Again quoting Common [ 161, we can enlarge the analysis further:
Ecology sees the problem [of sustainabilityf in terms of maintaining the
resilience, orfunctional integrity, of ecosystems.
An ecological economics conceptualisation of sustainability would involve
maximising a time integral of income subject to the constraints implied by the
maintenance of resilience.
The analysis of this problem shows that sustainability so conceived may require
compromising consumer sovereignty. Human preferences may be such that
economic activity is consistent with system integrity, but they may not be, rfthe
latter is the case, correcting market failure is not sufficient for sustainability. I n
fact, we have rather little idea what the sustainability constraints are. We do not
252
The London Communique‘ may be the answer, but what was the question?
filly understand the implications, for human interests, of the interdependence of
the systems.
Common then described ecological economics as:
An economics that takes what we think we know about our biophysical
circumstances, and about human psychology, seriously
-
which standard
neoclassical economics, including the sub-disciplines of environmental and
resource economics, does not do. In fact, economics ignores the interdependence
of the economic and ecological systems, and human psychology.
While there is little support for the use of energy or material flow indicators as a
primary basis of policy, I have no doubt that ecological economics must go “.. beyond
neoclassical economics by including the physical appraisal of the environmental
impacts of the human economy”. One may then begin to see ecological economics as
an “‘orchestrationof the sciences’ for the study of (un)sustainability...” [I?’].
Similar conflicts of perspectives between neoclassical economics and ecological
economics arise from the markedly different understandings of the psychology of
human behaviour, for example as illuminated by an analysis of the meaning of
Preferences [ 18, 191. Critical discussions in one journal (Ecological Economics) over
recent years have also covered conflicting perspectives on Technology and Energy in
economic activity [20,21]; Consumption [22]; the Value of Ecosystem Services [23];
Economics, Ethics and Environment [24] and the Human Actor in EcologicalEconomic Models 1251.
Complex Systems
The writer Alistak Mant has introduced an instructive analogy, as a means of
understanding complex systems: Complex systems such as governments and large
institutions are more likefrogs than bicycles.
To explain his point, one can take a bicycle to bits, clean and oil it, inspect and
service the parts and reassemble it, confident that it will work as well as before. Frogs
cannot be treated that way - the moment one takes away any significant part, both it
and the fTog itself are irreversibly affected.
253
J. Peet
A bicycle is a “stand-alone” system, which can exist without any connection to its
surroundings. All its parts exist independently, yet are interrelated and simultaneously
necessary for a reliable machine that is safe to ride. All the parts of a frog are
interrelated, too, and all are simultaneously necessary for the fiog to survive and
breed. A frog, however, can be either alive or dead, depending upon the relationship
between its parts. It can never “stand alone”; it is at all times intimately connected to,
and dependent on, the environment which gives it life.
In this analogy, Nature and Society - and the Economy - are frogs, not bicycles.
They are complex, living wholes, with interdependent parts and relations between the
parts that even now, with centuries of scientific understanding behind us, we still
barely understand. The policies and understandings that guide our decision-makers
today, however, are still based predominantly on the bike principle, where society is
divided up into neat parts each of which is assigned to some or other policy box, to be
dealt with independently, taken apart and reassembled (often in a different way), in
the expectation that it will work at least as well as before.
A more valid view may be to see society as an evolving, living entity (a frog),
dynamically and organically connected to, and dependent on, everything else, at all
times. In such circumstances, we need better means of visualising and assessing the
viability or sustainability of the complex systems we are studying.
Integration of Perspectives
A popular approach over recent years has been to see sustainable development policy
as involving environment, economy and society, and to represent them for policy
purposes in a Venn diagram, as circles which overlap in areas where linking and
cooperation are needed between the separate policy areas. Figure 3 illustrates this
model. For some corporations, the three concepts are summarised in the “triple
bottom line” that reflects a wider perspective than that of simple return on shareholder
capital, and in that context the model has some pedagogical value.
CliR [26] has enlarged on this model in Figure 4, in a form more familiar to
engineers. In this model, the logic of extending what engineers (especially chemical
engineers) already know about at the micro level, via new system boundaries, to the
macro level, is brought out clearly.
254
The London CommuniquP may be the answer, but what was the question?
Figure 3. The concept of sustainable development.
Eco-centric + macro
thermodynamics
Sociolcentric +
Techno-centric +
Figure 4. The Clift extension.
255
J. Peet
Figure 5. The "rabbit" model.
Figure 6. The concentric model.
256
The London Communique‘may be the answer, but what was the question?
As some workers have pointed out, however, especially on the larger scale at
which national or international policymaking is done, the three areas are not in fact
autonomous, independent partners. They actually exist in a complex hierarchical
relationship. A humorist has commented that in reality the hegemonic power of the
dominant (neoclassical) economic paradigm is such that a more realistic model may
be that of the “rabbit economy”, with environment and society relegated to a
subsidiary role, as shown in Figure 5. M’Gonigle (op cit) tends to support this, in his
comment that market values
I‘...
are socially-constructed using a market mechanism
that is inherently anti-ecological”.
Mitchell [27] has proposed a further extension, in which the three parts are given a
concentric representation, as shown in Figure 6. This brings out clearly the
hierarchical relationship between the parts, in that economic sustainability is
subordinate to social sustainability, and that in turn to ecological sustainability. This
is a significant improvement over the simple 3-level approach.
Figure 7 develops this yet further, by showing the thermo-physically modified
macroeconomic system of Figure 2 within its (supersystem) ecological environment.
The energy concept, familiar to chemical engineers, is central to this description of
-
the thermo-biophysical “engine” that enables the global ecosystem to function see
Common [28] for a related representation.
In my opinion, for the purpose of policymaking in the larger context, the model
needs even further extension. Most importantly, the 3-level approach ignores the
critically important part played by institutional structures [29, 301, as clarified by the
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) [31], in turn thematically
based on Agenda 2 1.
Again, we are up against the fact that to make our approach operational, it is
desirable to see the place of important component subsystems in our conceptual
model of society within its supersystem environment, while at the same time
attempting to allow for the realities of emergent complexity.
Without changing the political and legal context in which economic transactions
occur, little will change. But if the structure and key “drivers” are changed, then
following the Principle of Le Chatelier, economic values in the marketplace will also
2s 7
J. Peet
change. That is why institutional (including legal) structures which define the context
of economic activity are of prime importance, and why an honest acknowledgement
of the existence of ideology in all viewpoints about the desirability of institutionsand
mechanisms is essential [32]. Simply to correct market externalities, while arguably a
useful step forward in itself, is not good enough [33,34].
Figure 7. Thermo-biophysicalview of the economy.
Systems-based Approaches
The next step is to identify and try to assess the role and function of each important
subsystem, whether it is social, economic or ecological. From this information, the
various and often crucial linkages within and between them. and the total world
supersystem, relevant to policy development, now and in the future, would be better
understood. Acknowledgement of the importance of institutional structures is vital in
expanding the validity of our models of economy, society and environment. If we do
not fully understand the nature of “reality”, we can at least acknowledge linkages and
relationships, in order to enlarge our perspective to an extent sufficient to ensure
improved understanding and policy development.
258
The London Communique' may be the answer, but what was the question?
Four Policy Dimensions
of Sustainability
Inrtltutlonal
lnlpmr8tive
(The Wuppertal Prism of
Sustainabilily)
Envlmnmental
limk thmughput
Figure 8. The Wuppertal Prism of Sustainability.
HUMAN
&SOCIAL
SYSTEM
SUPPORT
SYSTEM
NATURAL
SYSTEM
Figure 9. Bossel's subsystems of society and environment.
259
J. Peet
The approach adopted by Spangenberg and co-workers [35] at the Wuppertal
Institute has been to take the three-sector model of Figure 3 and expand it to represent
the four UNCSD policy imperatives of sustainability on a Prism of Sustainability,
with Institutions at the apex. Figure 8 shows that this image has distinct value as a
pedagogical tool, since it takes an otherwise unconnected set of dimensions and
brings out the interlinkages between them. The model has hrther value as a means of
stimulating discussion and debate in community situations.
Figure 9 shows Bossel’s perspective [36] which, while also a simplification of
reality used for pedagogical convenience, and in some ways similar to that of
Spangenberg, expands it in a different way, by showing six major component
subsystems of the anthroposphere and their major relationships. Each part is
connected, directly or indirectly, to all others, showing the circular flows and
feedbacks where reciprocity can be seen as the key relationship. In Figure 9, the six
are also shown aggregated into the Human & Social, Support and Natural major
subsystems.
Figure 9 also assists one to understand that to ensure the sustainability of the total
system, the sustainability of each component subsystem also must be evaluated. The
overall process must therefore not only address each subsystem but also its
contribution to the viability of the whole.
The models of Spangenberg, Bossel, and others give us the opportunity to explore
other perspectives fiom which to develop an understanding of the requirements of
sustainability, through generically examining the needs of systems, including human
systems.
System Needs
It is a direct consequence of this response that pursuit of a goal such as that of
sustainability requires responsible management of a complex system, with the
immediate qualification that the complex system we are to manage is ourselves,
individually and coflecfively. In order to introduce management controls, however,
we have to be very clear about both our goal (desired outcome) and the key criteria
260
The London CommuniquP may be the answer, but what was the question?
that will tell us whether we are making progress towards it. These criteria are
generally known as Indicators. The indicators, and the processes used to select them,
will determine how we pursue our goal.
Human society is a complex system, in turn embedded in another
- the natural
environment. Since humans are totally dependent upon the natural environment for
the necessities of life, and since our activities strongly influence both human and
environmental health, we need to be well informed about key aspects of the state of
the human system, and the natural supersystem within which humans exist. This
means we must identify and watch those essential indicators that tell us about the state
of human development, of society, economy and the natural environment, while
acknowledging that a full understanding will always be beyond us [37]. (Note that
separating humanity, society, economy and environment into independent
compartments reflects a modem myth. In reality, we are all inseparably parts of the
totality of Life on Earth. The images and methodology described here are therefore
tools, not blueprints.) It is inherent in this perspective that we accept that we can
properly “control” only a small part of that complex system. The effects of our actions
- careful or clumsy - on those parts that we do not understand properly, are unlikely to
be beneficial.
As an attempt to be systematic, the PSR (Pressure-State-Response) and PSIR
(Pressure-State-Impact-Response) fiameworks devised by the OECD have been
widely applied by governments. While arguably usehl for some audiences, these
approaches neglect the systemic and dynamic nature of the processes, and their
dependence on a larger system, with many interrelationships and feedbacks.
A consistent systems-based ffamework has been constructed by Bossel, to assist in
identifying those parts of a complex system where the condition of one or more key
state variables may threaten the viability of the whole system. This framework is
-
designed to identify those hdamental needs or Basic Orientors - of a system, that
must be satisfied to ensure its viability or sustainability, over the longer term [38, 391.
Put into practice via indicators of sustainability, it is the basis for a powerfiil means of
development of policy for movement towards the goal of sustainable development.
261
1 Peet
Coexistence and the Ethical Filter
Bossel [40] makes the following comments, in the context of coevolution of the
humadenvironment system:
The decision for the essential part of sustainable development - environmental
sustainability - cannot be separatedfrom a decisibn of how to achieve it, and this
demands a far-reaching ethical choice, However we decide to achieve
environmental sustainability, it will have very signifjcant
- and very diflerent -
effects on human individuals and human society.
‘Sustainability’ of human society therefore has environmental, material,
ecological, social, cultural, [legal, economic, political] and psychological
dimensions that call for ethical decisions. The ethical framework we adopt
determines how we deal with these diJ3erent issues.
Thus, the choice of ethical framework has a major influence on our choice of those
criteria (e.g. indicators) we intend to use to control our actions, in pursuit of
responsible management of our own part of the whole complex socio-economicenvironment system. It is also valid, I believe, to assert a probable consequence,
namely that what is not visible within our ethical horizon is of no interest to us. In
other words, the ethical fiamework we adopt “filters” what we see and what we do
not see, and therefore constrains what we are prepared to use as control criteria.
As a starting point for application of such a framework, enunciation of values and
visions of people is needed, fiom which some overarching ethical perspectives can be
illuminated. Such a process is going ahead in several parts of New Zealand, including
Canterbury [41]. In Europe, a major exercise in valuation for sustainability has
recently been completed, where communities in several countries joined with
“experts” to create methods for valuation of environmental amenities and natural
systems for conservation and sustainability policy purposes [421.
Conclusions - Ethics as the basis of Sustainability
Ethical positions are implicit in any attempt to evaluate the common good. It seems
that the nature of human interaction with other life forms on earth in the hture will
262
The London Communique‘may be the answer, but what was the question?
depend upon the ways in which people collectively see themselves, in relation to all
-
other fonns of life. In other words, humanity will hold explicitly or implicitly, for
-
good or for ill to a moral position on its relationship with other life forms. For a
systematic expression of that moral position, an ethic is needed to rationalise their
actions.
-
The writer’s postulate is that an overarching goal an explicit moral commitment to Sustainability is needed by society. Such a goal is inherently one which applies to a
long term future. I would go further and suggest that it is already present to a large
extent, albeit often masked or confused. I accept that there are a number of ways in
which one may address this issue, e.g. from deontological (Kantian) or
consequentialist (Benthamite) viewpoints [43]. This is therefore a process, or journey,
rather than an easily identified outcome or goal which we will recognise on arrival. It
is not sufficient for the ethic to be implicit (and largely hidden from view) in an
economic system (e.g. via the Benthamite ethics implicit in neoclassical costhenefit
analysis) or via scientific assessment (e.g. of “risk”); it must be transparent and
developed through an open, community-based process.
The emergent complex behaviour of the supersystem of which we are part must
also be taken into account in our discourse. I am sure we all accept, however, that
many of the words we use to describe this complex system are not analytically
definable, especially if we work within the perspectives of post-normal science. We
-
can, however, clarify their meaning through discourse [44] a dialectic process.
Immediate questions are, therefore, whether most people broadly share the ethical
statement given above, and if they do, how could they join to organise Society to
pursue it? My personal response, perhaps nai’vely, is that I believe many people do
indeed share it, and that there is therefore a good case for investigating the nature of
social structures and understandings that could turn us, our society and others away
from our present unsustainable course towards one that is more sustainable. That, I
suggest, is the real key challenge for engineering and science, and for chemical
engineers in particular.
263
J. Peet
References
1. IChemE. 1997.The London Communique,obtainable from:
~ w w wicheme.org/publicity/py/publications/london~communiqu~index.h~l~
.
2. McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. 1998. The NEXT lndustrial Revolution, Atlantic Monthly,
October. (hnp://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/).
3. Brown, L.R et al. 1999.State ofthe World 1999. Worldwatch Institute and WW Norton & CO, New
York and London, page 21.
4. Peet, J., and Bossel, H. 2000. An Ethics-Based System Approach to Indicators of Sustainable
Development, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(3).
5 . Bossel, H. 1998.Earth at a Crossroads: Paths to a Sustainable Fumre. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
6. Max-Neef, M.A. 1991.Human Scale Development Conception, Application and Further Reflections,
The Apex Prcss, New York and London.
7. Peet, J., and Bossel, H. 2000.op cit.
8. For example, Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., and Norgaard, R. 1997. An
Introduction to Ecological Economics, International Society for Ecological Economics and St Lucie
Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Also, the journals Ecological Economics and The International Journal of
Sustainable Development.
9. Common, M. 1996. Whot is Ecological Economics? Land & Water Resources R&D Corporation
Occasional Paper Series 09/96,GPO Box 2182,Canberra, ACT 2601,Australia.
10. The basic principles of the circular flow model are outlined in, for example, page 106 of Samuelson,
P.A., and Nordhaus, W.D. 1989.Economics, 13“ edn, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
1 1. Common, M.1996.op cit
12. Peet, J. 1992.Energy and the Ecological Economics ofSustainabili~, Island Press, Washington. DC,
USA.
13. Nsrghrd, J.S.1992.Welfare on a Limited Planet: The roles of technology, population, and economy in
a sustainable energy policy. Alternative World Energy Conference. Madrid9 19-21 September 1992
(Dept of Buildings & Energy, Technical Univ of Denmark, DK-2800Lyngby).
14. M’Gonigle, R.M. 1999.Ecological economics and political ecology: towards a necessary synthesis,
Ecological Economics, 28( I), 1 1-26.
15. Peet, J. 1992.op cit.
16. Common, M. 1996.op cit.
17. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G.. and ONeill, J. 1998.Weak comparability of values as a foundation for
ecological economics Ecological Economics, 26(3), 277-286.
18. Norton, B, Costanza, R, and Bishop, R.C. 1998. The evolution of preferences. Why ‘sovereign’
preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it, Ecological Economics,
24(2/3), 193-21 I.
19. Sagoff, M. 1998.Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond
contingent pricing Ecological Economics, 24(2/3), 213-230.
20. Hornborg, A. 1985. Towards an ecological theory of unequal exchange: Articulating world system
theory and ecological economics, Ecological Economics, 25(1), 127-136.
21. Groscurth, H.M. 1998. Elements of a policy for more labor and more environmental protection,
Ecological Economics, 27(3), 237-242.
22. Ecological Economics, Special Section: Consumption and Environment,28(3), 1998.
23. Ecological Economics, Special Issue: The Value of Ecosystem Services, 25(1), 1998,
24. Ecological Economics, Special Issue: Economics, Ethics and Environment, 24(2/3), 1998,
25. Ecological Economics, Special Issue: The Human Actor in Ecological-Economic Models, 35(3), 2000.
26. Clift, R. 1998. Engineeringfor the Environment: The New Mode Engineer and Her Role, the 1998
McLennan Oration (The University of Melbourne), referenced by Mitchell, 2000 (below).
27. Mitchell, C. 2000. Integrating Sustainability in Chemical Engineering Practice and Education:
Concentricity and its Consequences, Trans. ICbernE, 78(Part B, July), 237-242.
28. Common, M.1995.Sustainabiliry and Policy: Limits to Economics, Cambridge Univ Press, UK.
29. M’Gonigle. R.M.1999. op cit.
30. Bromley, D.W. 1998. Searching for sustainability: The poverty of spontaneous order, Ecological
Economics, 24(2/3),23 1-240.
264
The London Communique' may be the answer, but what was the question?
31. United Nations. 1996.Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodologies. New
York: United Nations.
32. Sdderbaum, P. 1999.Values, ideology and politics in ecological economics, Ecological Economics,
28(2), 161-170.
33. Gustafsson, 8. 1999. Scope and limits of the market mechanism in environmental management,
Ecological Economics, 24(2/3), 259-274.
34. Common, M. 1996.op cit.
35. Spangenberg, J.H., and Bonniot, 0.2000.Sustainability Indicators A Compass on the Road Towards
Sustainability, Wuppertal Papers No. 81, February 1998, Wuppertal Instifut; Valentin, A,, and
A guide to community sustainability indicators, Environmental Impact Assessment
Spangenberg, J.H.;
Review, 20,381-392.
36. Bossel, H.1999.Indicatorsfor Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications, International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada, p. 17. (Obtainable from <mroy@iisd.ciu)
37. Funtowicz, S., and Ravetz, J.R. 1994.Emergent Complex Systems, Futures, 26(6), 568-582.
38. Bossel, H.1999.op cit.
39. Peet, J., and Bossel, H. 2000. op cit.
40. Bossel, H. 1997.Finding hdicators of Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Process, Results,
draft report for the Working Group on lndicators of Sustainable Development of the Balaton Group,
September 1997.(Published as Bossel, op cit 1999 ) (Note: words in square brackets added)
41. Canterbwy Dialogues Trust,Christchurch, NZ. (<www.canterburydialogues.org.nz>)
42. O'Connor, M.July 1998. Walking in the Gar&n(s) of Babylon: An overview of the VALSE Project,
C3ED Universite de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, 47 boulevard Vauban 78047 Guyancourt
Cedex, France.
43. Vesilind, P.A., and Gunn, A.S. 1998.Engineering, Ethics, and the Environment, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
44.Norgaard, J.S. 1994.op cit Also Funtowicz, S., and Ravetz, J.R. 1994.op cit. pp.579-581.
-
-
265